The False Narrative Promoted by American Vaccine Policy

On the same topic:

«Hhs is misrepresenting our research. […] I do not recall our study having a cohort of pregnant women or including 'placental blood clotting' as an outcome. If you are the HHS, you probably should not rely on hallucinating Gen AI to write your communications ». With these words, published publicly yesterday, one of the authors of the largest global study on the safety of Covid vaccines has taken an unequivocal position against the distorted and false use that the Department of Health and Human Services (Hhs) has made of his work . The study in question, published in * Vaccine *, involved 99 million subjects in eight countries and analyzed adverse events of particular interest such as myocarditis, pericarditis, Guillain-Barré syndrome. It did not include pregnant women, did not treat the placenta, did not mention placental thrombi. Yet, in a document informally distributed to members of the US Congress, the so-called “HHS FAQ”, this same study was used to state that “an additional study has shown an increase in placental coagulation in vaccinated pregnant women” . A sentence false in its entirety, without any textual basis, and used as a premise to justify the withdrawal of the official recommendation for vaccination during pregnancy.

The author's statement is the most clear-cut indictment ever leveled against this document, but it comes after twenty days of growing criticism from the scientific community and major medical organizations. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists had already branded it as an act of disinformation, "designed to sow doubt." Pediatricians had contested the claims about myocarditis in young people, showing how the risk associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection is higher than that of post-vaccination. Public health experts had expressed concern about the selective use of partial or unpublished data, while ignoring the large prospective cohorts, meta-analyses, active surveillance studies in Canada, the United Kingdom, Israel, Norway, which show safety and benefits of vaccination even during pregnancy and in pediatric age . Even CDC members, albeit under political pressure, had initially tried to distance themselves from the dissemination of the document.

But this is precisely the key: that document does not arise from a technical error, it arises from a political strategy . A strategy built on a false narrative, promoted by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the network of his allies who now operate within American health institutions. Kennedy is not an outsider: for months he has managed to occupy crucial positions in the regulatory and consultative sphere, dismantling the scientific basis of health policies from within. The HHS document is the direct result of this. It is not a report, it is not an official guideline, but an opaque, unsigned text that is circulating among parliamentarians to justify a choice already made: removing the recommendation for vaccination during pregnancy, in the name of a “freedom” based on lies . The method is always the same: scientific studies are cited, but they are distorted ; raw data is extrapolated, ignoring corrections for confounding factors; space is given to unvalidated preprints, while consolidated evidence is silenced. It is a well-tested mechanism, refined by years of anti-vaccination propaganda, which today is disguised as institutional prudence. The point is no longer to discuss, but to sabotage : to erode the consensus around vaccination, to shift the axis of public communication from rigor to fear.

What is happening is very serious, and the indignation of the author of the global study marks a turning point. Anyone who spreads falsehoods in a government document, knowingly, has crossed the line between error and manipulation. And those who promote this strategy, like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., are not acting to protect public health, but to destroy it . His words, his choices, his accomplices in health agencies are rewriting reality through omissions and lies. They are no longer activists, they are jackals in suits and ties, who use the structures of the State to legitimize their personal crusades against science. And when it comes to bending the work of serious researchers, to exploiting it against the evidence and against the interests of mothers and children, then the damage is no longer just symbolic. It is a direct attack on the ability to decide on the basis of facts, a deliberate sabotage of knowledge as a common good. Responding forcefully, today, is a moral duty. As long as emotional exhaustion allows it.

More on these topics: